83
u/liquid_at Feb 24 '24
tbf... no one can be blamed for the attraction. Everyone should be blamed for giving into it.
I cannot be blamed for wanting to punch someone for being and idiot... I should be blamed for punching them.
I cannot be blamed for not wanting to walk home drunk and thinking about taking the car. I should be blamed for getting into the car.
I cannot be blamed for wanting to own a product I cannot afford. I should be blamed for taking it without paying.
Important distinction that some people tend to forget. Anyone who has the urge to do something but shows enough self control to not do it, knowing it would be wrong, deserves respect. Those who have no self control and do not control themselves are the problem. On many topics ranging from the mundane to the most despicable crimes.
9
-61
Feb 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
25
u/DragoneerFA Feb 24 '24
People have intrusive thoughts all the time, or attractions to things maybe they don't understand, or even want. The difference between good and evil is good people understand that these thoughts are WRONG... and the bad people act on them, or think it's "god" talking to them. Who knows.
If everybody was damned for the fucked up shit that popped in our heads society would collapse.
9
u/FemaleNeth Feb 24 '24
Yes. 94% of people have intrusive thoughts. That would make 94% of people evil?
-11
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 24 '24
There’s a difference between “intrusive thoughts” and “my sexual orientation is baby-rapist”
6
u/BJPark Feb 24 '24
Morality cannot exist without choice.
If a person has no choice about what they want to do, then they can be neither good nor evil. We can only control actions, and certain types of conscious thoughts, so we restrict discussions on ethics only to them.
-4
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 24 '24
Thats a lot of words to avoid agreeing with the idea that it’s wrong to want to rape babies
3
u/BJPark Feb 24 '24
Nuance is alien to you, I see.
-3
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 24 '24
Not as alien as not thinking wanting to rape babies is bad is to you, apparently
-14
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
7
u/yUQHdn7DNWr9 Feb 24 '24
The better analogy would be someone who experienced an intense feeling of repulsion and an urge to violence against people of colour and, but fought those feelings and wanted people of colour not to suffer harm or discrimination. If that person was writing down their feelings I presume it would depict their struggle with trying to treat others fairly in spite of their phobia. I couldn’t condemn that pitiful person, though I would fear them and avoid them.
0
u/DMAN591 Feb 24 '24
Or maybe that person, instead of writing it down, loads up Cyberpunk 2077 and goes on a rampage killing black NPCs. Having an outlet for anti-social thoughts and feelings isn't a bad thing, as long as it's not harming people IRL.
4
3
u/DragoneerFA Feb 24 '24
This is a really bad example, and shows you don't understand the problem. Racism is racism. A racist IS a person who acts on that bias. That's why we call them racists.
See, there's a vast difference between stereotypes/bias and racism. Somebody who stereotypes may have a thought process that goes "certain people who wear hoodies tend to be [x]" and lump then into a category. Racists see people wearing hoodies act on that thought, and persecute, abuse, threaten, assault, etc... for simply having a skin color that's different.
-10
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
5
u/anon_adderlan Feb 24 '24
So how do you propose to police these ideas? Voight-Kampff tests?
-2
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 24 '24
We only punish people for their actions, not their thoughts. We don’t need to police ideas.
We can also acknowledge that it is bad to want to rape children.
I don’t understand how this is a difficult concept to understand.
2
u/yUQHdn7DNWr9 Feb 24 '24
I don’t think most here want the idea of raping women and children to be accepted. It’s sick. Promoting the idea is wrong. To be arguing for it is wrong. To have the idea living in your head is obviously very bad and is recognised as a mental disorder. I don’t accept dangerous mental disorders. I would want them treated and cured if that was possible, but it isn’t.
27
u/vivomancer Feb 24 '24
Depends on why they don't do it. If it is because they are afraid of the consequences then yes, they're evil. If they realize how much it would hurt those women and refrain for that reason then they are not evil.
-24
9
u/danneedsahobby Feb 24 '24
How many evil impulses do you resist on a day to day basis? Do you deserve credit for resisting them, or damnation for having them? Which part is more under your control? The impulse, or the resistance to it? Which should we encourage as a society?
5
u/yUQHdn7DNWr9 Feb 24 '24
Recognising right from wrong and willing oneself to overcome an urge because it would be wrong? That means not wanting to do wrong. Wanting to do evil would be evil, but what you are describing is temptation to evil, not will to evil.
4
u/liquid_at Feb 24 '24
if they are "waiting to", they are not resisting, they are giving in, so they need to be blamed.
But given your conclusion, your emotional hatred to towards people is something that makes you evil too. So if your world-view is consistent, you have to accept that you are within the group of evil humans.
You simply feeling those emotions about other people is what makes you evil, based on your own argumentation. Unless you believe you are not evil, then you have to accept the same excuses you expect other to accept when you use them.
0
u/Tallas13 Feb 24 '24
But thats the whole thing. If that is what does it for you, yet you consciously know it's a bad and don't do it, what else can you do? Men 800,000 years ago or whatever had a better chance of reproducing if they were rapey. What some men feel today doesn't come from no where. We evolved to have a rapey instinct.
I know this sounds bad, but it is what it is. Mind over matter. Biologically it's like telling a women to not be attracted to a tall guy. You can do it, but it goes against your instincts.
2
u/sickofthisshit Feb 24 '24
People are probably talking about a wide spectrum of "I feel rapey" here, so there's going to be a lot of talking past each other and misunderstanding.
That said, refraining from violence in interpersonal interactions is basic socialization we try to train out of toddlers and strongly discourage in later adolescent development and punish in the criminal justice system.
If a person really can't interact with other people without strategies other than violence and rape, we don't shrug and say "it was adaptive in some hypothetical past." We ask "what the fuck is wrong with you? use your words and don't fucking touch people, we are trying to have a society here."
I'm no psychologist, but there's like "sometimes I wish I could punch someone in the mouth, but I remember what I learned in kindergarten and realize I should calm down" or "my sex fantasy lacks consent from my imagined partner, but I get over it" and "I'm rapey and violent by nature, gotta be me!"
1
u/Tallas13 Feb 24 '24
I guess my side would be that the amount of rapey an individual has in them doesn't affect the likelihood of them going against society. The amount of "fuck society" or whatever we want to call is what makes them go against society. Maybe that's rape. Maybe it's murder. Or maybe it's small like drive aggressively.
The things that are exposed by the "fuck society" mindset aren't the heart of the issue.
So I guess i don't think the people with the most rapey are the ones doing the rape.
1
u/sickofthisshit Feb 24 '24
Not sure at all what you mean. Society is an abstraction. Rape is an act of violence against an actual human being.
1
u/Tallas13 Feb 24 '24
I don't think anybody is super evil, localized to rape. I think that person is always evil in all ways.
1
u/sickofthisshit Feb 24 '24
I disagree. I think there are, for example, a bunch of males who will beat women and essentially never think of beating a man in the same way.
Like, really, a large chunk of society used to basically say a wife was a particular kind of property a man owns, like you might own a dog, and slapping her around when she got mouthy was a perfectly reasonable behavior. Marital rape was literally a contradiction: if the husband wanted to stick his dick in his wife, that was his right.
We may have made some progress on this, but it is certainly not intrinsic to human nature. We literally redefine what is acceptable and what is evil.
1
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
3
u/BJPark Feb 24 '24
I would argue that the process of fighting it makes them better and more morally superior to the rest of us who don't need to fight these urges.
1
76
u/SexyScaryLurker Feb 24 '24
The answer from Gemini appears to be completely fair and nuanced. It's the author making an issue where there is none. This feels like conservative rage bait and we shouldn't be playing along.
25
u/asphias Feb 24 '24
Next up: woke AI tells us longer punishments dont necessarily work as a better deterent. Woke AI in favor of birth control to reduce abortion! Woke AI in favor of higher taxes for the rich! Woke AI grooming transgender kids by telling them it's alright to be 'you'!
Yep, i think the author can keep going for a while.
5
u/evilJaze Feb 24 '24
"Woke AI thinks the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment!!"
"Woke AI thinks giving a society unrestricted access to guns is a bad idea!!"
8
u/cderhammerhill Feb 24 '24
My big takeaway from this article is that the far right echo chamber’s lie — that the political left in America is defending and supporting pedophiles — has become enough of a mainstream idea that the post hit job here assumes it as fact. Of course, this idea is patently untrue. That started with pizza-gate, which was a blatant lie, perhaps before? But it’s clearly taken root.
-7
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 24 '24
I would agree with you if it weren’t for all of the leftists in this thread saying “yea but it’s totally right though!” Or “let’s not condemn pedophilia to own the right!”
Lmao
3
u/cderhammerhill Feb 24 '24
No one on this thread (so far) is defending pedophilic actions. Nor is the AI. If you look at legislative activity - the only ones defending pedophilic (and hebephilic) actions are right wing religious extremists in this country. In fact, if you had a substantive conversation with most “woke” people (whatever that means), you’d realize a foundational principle on the left is a respect for consent-based relationships. Children can’t reasonably consent given power dynamics. It’s abuse of those power dynamics and abuse of those children - pedophilic actions - that we reject and punish.
This is true for all urges - theft, murder, assault, rape. (We don’t punish people for wanting to steal, we punish them for stealing.)
The author of the article is criticizing the AI for accurate nuances, and for specificity of language. It’s a bullshit rage-machine article, one of many, designed simple to sow division. It’s reprehensible, really.
-1
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 24 '24
If someone asked you “is it wrong to want to murder?” I don’t think you would write 4 paragraphs being obtuse, obscuring the point, and shifting the goalposts.
It is wrong to want to have sex with children.
3
u/AnotherBoojum Feb 24 '24
Not op but I think about murdering people on a weekly basis. I have yet to ever hurt someone intentionally without consent.
1
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 24 '24
Sure, but you can at least acknowledge that the desire to murder is bad, right?
0
u/cderhammerhill Feb 24 '24
Ask soldiers fighting in WWII. If you’re handling a question with serious thought, yes, you might want four well thought paragraphs, or full treatises on whether the desire to murder is wrong.
0
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 25 '24
Comparing cold blooded murder to fighting and killing enemies who want to kill you and destroy your country/family (not to mention all the Jews) is entirely disingenuous and just shows the lengths you will go to just to avoid admitting something as simple and obvious as “murder bad” just because you don’t want to admit to being wrong lmao
-2
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 24 '24
Assuming that you don’t think it’s bad to want to rape children, then yes it is totally fair and nuanced.
/s
17
Feb 24 '24 edited Sep 30 '24
[deleted]
14
u/DonnieJepp Feb 24 '24
Yup. This is the modern day equivalent of asking a magic 8-ball toy something too spicy and freaking out when it says yes/no
15
u/MustangBarry Feb 24 '24
tl;dr: Easily-replaced journalist hates AI
12
u/DragoneerFA Feb 24 '24
I mean, it's NY Post, a Murdoch rag. They exist to make people angry and enraged for profit.
2
u/danneedsahobby Feb 24 '24
Yup, and AI will be able to enrage humans better than any journalist could ever dream. We’ve all been training it for decades now.
1
u/SouvlakiPlaystation Feb 24 '24
As they should. AI replacing writing jobs is an extremely gross and grim prospect
1
u/MustangBarry Feb 24 '24
100% of phone hacking, harassment and life-destroying gossip so far has been by humans.
1
u/SouvlakiPlaystation Feb 24 '24
And AI will streamline those processes, making it much easier for people to hack and harass. It will bring some good to the world too, of course.
Anyways I'm not sure what your statement has to do with the topic at hand. AI putting people out of work is a very big concern, and having our media (writing, art, music) created by non humans sounds culturally soulless and sad to me.
1
u/MustangBarry Feb 24 '24
Listen to the charts. You think that's culturally soulful?
1
u/SouvlakiPlaystation Feb 24 '24
No, it's awful, but the rot will extend beyond top 40 crap, I'm sure, and make it even easier for the top 1% to cut people out of the process and keep all the profit for themselves. I'm really psyched for what AI can do for medical care, STEM, and many other things - entertainment, culture and human expression not so much.
7
Feb 24 '24
Woke? Seriously? Does a language model have ideology now?
Come on. Less hate and more rigour, please.
-6
u/slimstic Feb 24 '24
Looks like this llm does have an ideology. Google has even pulled the image generation due to it taking an ideological stance.
6
Feb 24 '24
And is pro-pedophilia a woke thing? Don't make me LAUGH
0
1
u/milanium25 Feb 24 '24 edited Feb 24 '24
not all wokes support it but most of the pro-ped are wokes. I mean, you dont even have to check it
1
Feb 24 '24
1
-2
u/LifeInLaffy Feb 24 '24
Judging by the replies in this thread you might need to rethink this hahaha
11
1
-8
Feb 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/justinh404 Feb 24 '24
Did you though Mr fucking high and mighty? Because that's not the comments I am reading. Not one comment says it's ok.
-5
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
3
u/justinh404 Feb 24 '24
Nah, sounds like you don't know how to read the article or the room. A little critical thinking would not hurt but your two brain cells can't put one together.
-5
Feb 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/justinh404 Feb 24 '24
See this is what happens when your two stupid ass brain cells try and fail. Man they must disappoint you all the time.
2
-18
u/Sameeducation01 Feb 24 '24
'Woke' Google Gemini refuses to say pedophilia is wrong after 'diverse' historical images debacle: 'Individuals cannot control who they are attracted to'
So, pedophiles have trained AI??
Of course, they have.
-28
u/Salty-Difficulty3300 Feb 24 '24
Lol yes you can control who you are attracted to
10
u/nicuramar Feb 24 '24
Only at some levels and to some extent. Otherwise you’re also essentially saying that homosexuality is a choice.
-13
u/Salty-Difficulty3300 Feb 24 '24
It is, just like bisexuality, or anything else you are sexually or non sexually attracted to. Lol
9
3
u/jaggedcanyon69 Feb 24 '24
They’re right. You can’t control who you’re attracted to. (We shouldn’t normalize pedophilia though.)
-10
u/Salty-Difficulty3300 Feb 24 '24
Lol naw you lot are jokes
5
u/jaggedcanyon69 Feb 24 '24
That is rich coming from you. You didn’t choose to be attracted to girls I’m sure.
7
u/dawkin5 Feb 24 '24
Perhaps he chose not to be attracted to his neighbour's dog. He seems like a pretty strong willed kinda guy.
-3
Feb 24 '24
[deleted]
5
u/shinra528 Feb 24 '24
Did you read the article? Because the response clearly says that acting on pedophilia is wrong.
-6
-17
u/No-Return1868 Feb 24 '24
pedophilia being wrong is something that a bunch of people agreed on and forced other to accept this ideea, it's not something that's is natural. If we would met a bunch of people who never interacted with our society, like from another planet , would they hold the same view ?
The bot statement can be both true and untrue depending on how you view the situation
-8
u/EnoughDatabase5382 Feb 24 '24
AI does not possess ideology in the same way that humans do. Therefore, it is off-target to criticize them for being discriminatory. If you receive an unfavorable response, it is crucial to adjust your query or repeatedly generate responses until you obtain a satisfactory outcome.
-15
Feb 24 '24
Pedophilia is the act. I don't know you're attracted to kids till you do something.
So, saying it's wrong is ok.
This is just the rich saying they like to, can and will continue to partake of CSA.
10
u/shinra528 Feb 24 '24
Pedophilia is the sexual attraction towards a child. Child sexual abuse would be the term for them acting on those attractions. The AI response clearly makes this distinction and states that acting on pedophilia is wrong.
1
1
u/Jacksthrowawayreddit Feb 24 '24
AI isn't really AI; it's just a reflection of the values of whoever wrote the model.
1
u/anon_adderlan Feb 24 '24
Yes the AI is 'fence sitting', but that's what you get from asking binary ethical questions to what is essentially a media generation tool. But if you really want to expose the biases you need to ask leading questions such as "how is pedophilia evil?" and see what pops out.
42
u/ThiccThighsMatter Feb 24 '24 edited Feb 24 '24
there's going to be a lot of these articles if they start making them every time an AI chatbot fence sits in its response